基于nlp的软件工程模型评价研究

M. Izadi, Matin Nili Ahmadabadi
{"title":"基于nlp的软件工程模型评价研究","authors":"M. Izadi, Matin Nili Ahmadabadi","doi":"10.1145/3528588.3528665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"NLP-based models have been increasingly incorporated to address SE problems. These models are either employed in the SE domain with little to no change, or they are greatly tailored to source code and its unique characteristics. Many of these approaches are considered to be outperforming or complementing existing solutions. However, an important question arises here: Are these models evaluated fairly and consistently in the SE community?. To answer this question, we reviewed how NLP-based models for SE problems are being evaluated by researchers. The findings indicate that currently there is no consistent and widely-accepted protocol for the evaluation of these models. While different aspects of the same task are being assessed in different studies, metrics are defined based on custom choices, rather than a system, and finally, answers are collected and interpreted case by case. Consequently, there is a dire need to provide a methodological way of evaluating NLP-based models to have a consistent assessment and preserve the possibility of fair and efficient comparison.","PeriodicalId":313397,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Natural Language-Based Software Engineering (NLBSE)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineering\",\"authors\":\"M. Izadi, Matin Nili Ahmadabadi\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3528588.3528665\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"NLP-based models have been increasingly incorporated to address SE problems. These models are either employed in the SE domain with little to no change, or they are greatly tailored to source code and its unique characteristics. Many of these approaches are considered to be outperforming or complementing existing solutions. However, an important question arises here: Are these models evaluated fairly and consistently in the SE community?. To answer this question, we reviewed how NLP-based models for SE problems are being evaluated by researchers. The findings indicate that currently there is no consistent and widely-accepted protocol for the evaluation of these models. While different aspects of the same task are being assessed in different studies, metrics are defined based on custom choices, rather than a system, and finally, answers are collected and interpreted case by case. Consequently, there is a dire need to provide a methodological way of evaluating NLP-based models to have a consistent assessment and preserve the possibility of fair and efficient comparison.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Natural Language-Based Software Engineering (NLBSE)\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Natural Language-Based Software Engineering (NLBSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3528588.3528665\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE/ACM 1st International Workshop on Natural Language-Based Software Engineering (NLBSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3528588.3528665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

基于nlp的模型已经越来越多地用于解决SE问题。这些模型要么在SE域中使用,几乎没有变化,要么根据源代码及其独特的特征进行了大量的调整。许多这些方法被认为是优于或补充现有的解决方案。然而,这里出现了一个重要的问题:这些模型在SE社区中是否得到了公平和一致的评估?为了回答这个问题,我们回顾了研究人员如何评估基于nlp的SE问题模型。研究结果表明,目前还没有一致和广泛接受的方案来评估这些模型。虽然在不同的研究中评估同一任务的不同方面,但度量标准是基于自定义选择而不是系统来定义的,最后,答案是逐例收集和解释的。因此,迫切需要提供一种评估基于nlp的模型的方法学方法,以获得一致的评估并保持公平和有效比较的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineering
NLP-based models have been increasingly incorporated to address SE problems. These models are either employed in the SE domain with little to no change, or they are greatly tailored to source code and its unique characteristics. Many of these approaches are considered to be outperforming or complementing existing solutions. However, an important question arises here: Are these models evaluated fairly and consistently in the SE community?. To answer this question, we reviewed how NLP-based models for SE problems are being evaluated by researchers. The findings indicate that currently there is no consistent and widely-accepted protocol for the evaluation of these models. While different aspects of the same task are being assessed in different studies, metrics are defined based on custom choices, rather than a system, and finally, answers are collected and interpreted case by case. Consequently, there is a dire need to provide a methodological way of evaluating NLP-based models to have a consistent assessment and preserve the possibility of fair and efficient comparison.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GitHub Issue Classification Using BERT-Style Models Story Point Level Classification by Text Level Graph Neural Network Issue Report Classification Using Pre-trained Language Models Identification of Intra-Domain Ambiguity using Transformer-based Machine Learning Predicting Issue Types with seBERT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1